Why Does EPA Believe Manure That is Burned as a Fuel is a Solid Waste, and What 

Data/Information Could Commenters Provide to Support the Assertion That it is Not a Solid 

Waste? 

Is Manure a Traditional Fuel?

EPA considers traditional fuels to be those materials that have been historically burned as fuels 

and have been managed as valuable fuel products. Included in the list of materials identified as 

traditional fuels are: clean cellulosic biomass (e.g., wood) and fossil fuels (e.g., coal oil, natural 

gas) and their derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil, refinery gas, 

synthetic fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace gas, recovered gaseous butane, and coke 

oven gas). EPA does not consider animal manure to be (or has been) considered a traditional 

fuel. Some states have identified manure as a solid waste (e.g., Florida considers manure to be a 

solid waste, but exempts farms from having to obtain solid waste management permits). 

Data/Information Commenters Could Provide to Support the Assertion that Manure is a 

Traditional Fuel: EPA does not envision concluding that manure would meet our definition of 

traditional fuel. 

Does Manure Pass Legitimacy Criteria?

We currently do not believe or have information or data to support the position that manure 

satisfies the legitimacy criterion. Specifically, we have serious questions/lack information as to 

whether manure: (1) is handled as a valuable commodity; (2) contains contaminants at levels 

comparable to traditional fuels; and (3) satisfies the meaningful heating value criterion. Each 

one of these is described below, together with suggestions as to what types of information/data 

commenters could submit (or for which data could be solicited during the comment period) to 

support the assertion that manure satisfies each of these criteria. 

Does Manure Satisfy the “Managed as Valuable Commodity” Legitimacy Criteria? 

The preamble to the proposal states “Where there is an analogous fuel, the secondary material 

used as a fuel must be managed in a manner consistent with the management of the analogous 

fuel or otherwise be adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the environment. Where 

there is no analogous fuel, the secondary material must be adequately contained so as to prevent 

releases to the environment.” We believe that, due to the nature of manure, there is no analogous 

“traditional” fuel. As such, the manure must be adequately contained so as to prevent releases to 

the environment. The preamble further states “a non-hazardous secondary material is 

“adequately contained” if it is stored in a manner that adequately prevents hazards to the 

environment, considering the nature and toxicity of the secondary material.” 

We state in the proposal that “we recognize that animal manure, as generated, is typically not 

handled as a valuable commodity at the point of generation, but remains in feedlots or other 

areas with the potential for contaminants to be released to the environment.” That is, we 

generally believe that due to the nature of manure (e.g., pathogen content, VOC content, and 
potential for other contaminants, such as heavy metals or other additives), and how and where it 

is generated, that contaminants are released to the environment prior to it being burned as a fuel 

(e.g., via run-off or through contaminants volatilizing and being released to the ambient air since 

manure may not be contained in enclosed devices). 

Data/Information Commenters Could Provide to Support the Assertion That Manure is Managed 

as a Valuable Commodity: USDA has provided anecdotal information which they believe 

supports their position that manure is managed as a valuable commodity. For example, USDA 

states “in reality, a feedlot serves both as a collection area and a temporary storage area for 

manure. Manure is harvested on a regular basis from a feedlot and is typically then land applied 

to provide nutrients to crops directly if the timing is agronomically-beneficial for land 

application or stored in stockpiles until such time.” USDA also states “It is infeasible to 

continuously (or very frequently) harvest manure from a feedlot surface for a number of 

reasons”. USDA further states that “The type of manure collection, storage, and treatment 

varies from farm-to-farm and is dependent upon a number of factors, including animal species, 

housing type, geographic location, and producer expertise, among others.” 

USDA also states that manure should be considered to be managed as a valuable commodity for 

purposes of this rule since manure that is used as a fertilizer is managed as a valuable 

commodity. First, we would note that the Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Material 

that are Solid Waste proposed rule only classifies as solid wastes those secondary materials that 

are burned in combustion units. The proposal does not address other end use applications (land 

application) as this is not relevant in determining which non-hazardous secondary materials, such 

as manure, are solid wastes for purposes of deciding which Clean Air Act (CAA) emission 

standards apply. We will continue to leave that decision—that is, which non-hazardous 

secondary materials are solid waste when managed in these other applications, to the states. 

Thus, we suggest that commenters focus on providing EPA with data or information that 

explains how manure that is used as a fuel is adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the 

environment. Useful information would include descriptions of the different ways manure is 

generated and handled with an emphasis on explaining whether (and how) it is contained to 

prevent releases of contaminants to the environment. Additional information would also be 

helpful regarding how long manure is stored prior to use as a fuel since that is another part of this 

legitimacy criteria that must be satisfied (i.e., it must be used within a reasonable timeframe). 

Finally, to the extent that manure is processed (see definition of processed in the proposed rule) 

before it is used as a fuel, commenters could provide information on how manure is processed, 

how it is managed after it is processed and before it is burned as a fuel that would allow EPA to 

determine whether manure that is processed would meet this legitimacy criterion. 

Does Manure Satisfy the “Contaminant” Legitimacy Criteria? 

Non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels in combustion units must not contain 

contaminants that are significantly higher in concentration than traditional fuel products. The 

term “contaminants” refers to constituents in non-hazardous secondary materials that may be of 

concern when burned as a fuel, including those contaminants that could generate products of 

incomplete combustion (PICs). We acknowledge we have limited contaminant data on manure, 

although we believe pathogen levels of manure are higher than levels in traditional fuels. We 
have also heard from various sources that manure can contain dioxin, heavy metals (arsenic), as 

well as additives to the feed that could be of concern. 

In order to demonstrate that this criterion is met, contaminant levels found in manure need to be 

compared to traditional fuels that are in use today (e.g., clean biomass, coal). If manure has 

equivalent or lower contaminant levels relative to traditional fuels, then the material would 

satisfy this criterion. If the material has contaminant levels that are higher than levels found in 

traditional fuels, then it must be determined whether those levels are significantly higher. The 

preamble states that “in determining whether the concentration of contaminants in non-hazardous 

secondary materials is “significantly higher,” we believe that a qualitative evaluation of the 

potential human health and environmental risks posed may be appropriate in instances where 

contaminants in such secondary materials are present at slightly higher concentrations relative to 

traditional fuels. A contaminant concentration could be elevated without posing an unacceptable 

risk, and therefore may not be considered “significant” for the purposes of determining whether 

the non-hazardous secondary material is legitimately being burned as a fuel in combustion 

units.” 

As such, a facility could demonstrate that although manure contains higher levels of 

contaminants, the use of this material (burning as a fuel) does not pose an unacceptable risk, and 

therefore should not be considered to contain contaminants that are significantly higher in 

contaminant levels. 

Data/Information Commenters Could Provide to Support the Assertion That Manure Does Not 

Contain Contaminants that are Significantly Higher in Concentration than What is Contained in 

Traditional Fuels. We have limited contaminant data on manure. We would recommend that 

commenters provide us with contaminant data that would be incorporated into our existing 

material characterization paper. A more detailed description of the contaminants that are 

otherwise not associated with clean biomass that could be present in manure (e.g., what they 

are), as well as the source of contaminants, would also be helpful (e.g., is it through food 

additives or something else). Further, an assessment of the comparative levels of these 

contaminants relative to traditional fuels would be useful information. If contaminants are 

present at levels higher than what is found in traditional fuels, a qualitative assessment as to 

whether these increased levels pose unacceptable risk could further support whether manure 

meets the contaminant legitimacy criteria. To the extent that manure is processed prior to being 

used as a fuel, commenters could provide information or data on the levels of contaminants in 

processed manure relative to the levels in traditional fuels. 

Does Manure Satisfy the “Meaningful Heating Value ” Legitimacy Criterion? 

For purposes of meeting the legitimacy criteria for fuels, we would consider non-hazardous 

secondary materials with an energy value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb, as-fired, to have meaningful 

heating value, and satisfy this legitimacy criterion. Facilities that use non-hazardous secondary 

materials as fuels with an energy content lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired, may also be able to 

demonstrate that a meaningful heating value is derived from the non-hazardous secondary 

material if the energy recovery unit can cost-effectively recover meaningful energy from the 

non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels. 
Data/Information Commenters Could Provide to Support the Assertion That Manure Has 

Meaningful Heating Value. We have limited “as-fired” heating value data on manure that is used 

as fuel in energy recovery devices. Moisture content of manures could result in low heating 

values that would not satisfy this criteria. Commenters could provide EPA with data that 

describes the energy content of the various types of manures that are used as fuels for inclusion 

in our material characterization paper. If the heating value is less than 5000 BTUs per pound, a 

description of whether the energy recovery unit can cost-effectively recover meaningful energy 

from the manure would be helpful to support whether the manure satisfies this requirement. 

Again, to the extent that manure is processed prior to being used as a fuel, commenters could 

also provide the heating value of the processed manure.